Titlebook: Slavoj Zizek and Dialectical Materialism; Agon Hamza,Frank Ruda Book 2016 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2016 Slavoj i ek

FAULT

書目名稱Slavoj Zizek and Dialectical Materialism影響因子(影響力)




書目名稱Slavoj Zizek and Dialectical Materialism影響因子(影響力)學(xué)科排名




書目名稱Slavoj Zizek and Dialectical Materialism網(wǎng)絡(luò)公開度




書目名稱Slavoj Zizek and Dialectical Materialism網(wǎng)絡(luò)公開度學(xué)科排名




書目名稱Slavoj Zizek and Dialectical Materialism被引頻次




書目名稱Slavoj Zizek and Dialectical Materialism被引頻次學(xué)科排名




書目名稱Slavoj Zizek and Dialectical Materialism年度引用




書目名稱Slavoj Zizek and Dialectical Materialism年度引用學(xué)科排名




書目名稱Slavoj Zizek and Dialectical Materialism讀者反饋




書目名稱Slavoj Zizek and Dialectical Materialism讀者反饋學(xué)科排名

characteristic

Pandemic

AFFIX

arthroscopy

,Materialism without Materialism: Slavoj ?i?ek and the Disappearance of Matter,irst century the Marxist tradition of “dialectical materialism.” Although this philosophical label is closely associated with such names as, first and foremost, Friedrich Engels and V. I. Lenin, ?i?ek seeks to develop a permutation that deviates markedly from the classical Engelsian and Soviet versi

Coordinate

Analogy

The Necessity of an Absolute Misunderstanding: Why Hegel Has So Many Misreaders,ccasions such wild divergence with regard to the principal concerns of her or his philosophy, and the competition is not even close. To capture the immensity of the divergence of opinion concerning Hegel, one would have to imagine some readers of Marx seeing him as a champion of the capitalist syste

違抗

From Hegel to Kant: The Thing-of-Itself German Idealism,al Ungrund as a stain in the middle of the Hegelian eye, but also the inversion of the development between the four figures of German Idealism—Kant, Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel. This quadruplicity has at its core the relation between Kant and Hegel, or rather Hegel and Kant: because it is not that

Mortal

泛濫

,Dialectic at Its Impurest: ?i?ek’s Materialism of Less Than Nothing,ical materialism seems nothing but an atavistic remainder of a past long gone, a notion which in an era of prevalent cynical dis-tantiation and emerging “new materialisms” rightfully triggers ironiz-ing responses. Hence, it is all the more curious that Slavoj ?i?ek should consciously place his philo